From owner-freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org  Thu Sep 17 13:43:22 2015
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org>
Delivered-To: freebsd-bugs@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org
 [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1])
 by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C1A69CE3D2
 for <freebsd-bugs@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org>;
 Thu, 17 Sep 2015 13:43:22 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org)
Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org (kenobi.freebsd.org
 [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::16:76])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
 (Client did not present a certificate)
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EC24412E9
 for <freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org>; Thu, 17 Sep 2015 13:43:21 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org)
Received: from bugs.freebsd.org ([127.0.1.118])
 by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id t8HDhLoX060123
 for <freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org>; Thu, 17 Sep 2015 13:43:21 GMT
 (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org)
From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org
To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org
Subject: [Bug 203162] when close(fd) on a fifo fails with EINTR, the file
 descriptor is not really closed
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 13:43:22 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: AssignedTo
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: Base System
X-Bugzilla-Component: kern
X-Bugzilla-Version: 10.1-RELEASE
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: Affects Only Me
X-Bugzilla-Who: kib@FreeBSD.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: New
X-Bugzilla-Priority: ---
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-203162-8-GpofSB5LDc@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-203162-8@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-203162-8@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Bugzilla-URL: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-BeenThere: freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bug reports <freebsd-bugs.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-bugs>,
 <mailto:freebsd-bugs-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-bugs-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-bugs>,
 <mailto:freebsd-bugs-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 13:43:22 -0000

https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=203162

--- Comment #6 from Konstantin Belousov <kib@FreeBSD.org> ---
(In reply to Victor Stinner from comment #5)
FreeBSD also ensures that both open(O_RDONLY) and open(O_WRONLY) succeed
simultaneously, but there is a race.

Assume that both threads doing the opens noticed each other presence, but right
after that the thread doing open(O_RDONLY) continued execution, while the
thread doing(O_WRONLY) was not put on the CPU immediately.  It was a scheduler
decision, for whatever reasons.  Then, open(O_RDONLY) succeeds, the thread
continues the execution and then it could even run as far as to execute close()
on the fd returned by open.  After that, when open(O_WRONLY) thread eventually
gets CPU, it notices that there is no readers (there was one, but it is gone
now).  So it returns to the sleep waiting for a reader.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.